Summary.
The allegations brought forward by Jones against Joe were that Joe never undertook his assigned work, took long to complete any work and was not cautious on maintenance procedures. This displayed disrespect and lack of ethics, in Joe’s part, as per the stipulated laws of McLaughlin Pharmaceuticals. Jones knew well that most of the allegations that Joe had reportedly brought forward in regard to the conduct of the management lacked proper basis. He knew that Joe was negligent on his duties and was worried about the increasing WCB costs, which he was answerable for since that was his department. Jones was not in a position to dismiss Joe; the right procedures had to be followed. The problem was on reaching a decision on how to handle Joe as the proceedings on his case took place.
Jones noted that Joe never followed his instructions when assigning work. The instance on removal of the collar from a motor’s shaft proved this lack of etiquette from Joe’s part. The latter was found by Jones assisting another mechanic rather than completing his assigned work. On confirmation why he was doing this, Joe provided insufficient excuses. The pipe brackets case is another prove of Joe’s negligence and disobedience in work. In this case, he was extravagant on the company’s resources and at the same time used a lot of time to complete the assignment. In addition, Joe spent a lot of time socializing with his fellow mechanics rather than working. Joe undermined the roles of Jones as reflected in the case on eye burns where he preferred to report the case directly to the nurse rather that to the supervisor.
Analysis.
The overall behavior of Joe risks the image and procedures of the whole company. For instance, failure to follow the right procedures in maintaining the safety of the machines, poses a risk to the fellow workers. In addition, failure to work according to the instructions or withdrawing from the given instructions and working on others, may impact on production levels and delivery.
There is the need for the supervisor to identify why Joe portrays such behavior at work. According to his analyses, Joe is negligent and unethical at the work place. He has problems dealing with his seniors and wants to feel independent in making his own decisions. A close analysis of Joe’s character reveals negligence, disrespect, dismissive, arrogance and lack of work ethics. If not watched closely, this problem may lead to loss of business resources as well as customers. The elements of Joe’s character pose a threat to the safety of the other employees. This calls for immediate action against his conduct.
The challenge is on how to deal with Joe considering that he also has his rights as an employee and is also a member of the labor union. However, his gross conduct is unacceptable if the company has to stand with its right procedures of handling the employees’ expectations. Carl Jones recognizes the failures and follows the right procedures in dealing with Joe. According to the provisions in exhibit 5, Joe has a case to answer and if found guilty may be given a warning. Joe’s disciplinary measures fall under group A and C disciplinary categories. This is in respect to violation of safety rules and refusal to perform assigned work.
Recommendations.
The first solution to Joe’s behavior should be a focus on his behavior by the supervisor and other seniors in the management. Talking with him, and not to him, and making him understand the feelings he intrigues would attract a change in behavior. At first Joe may become defensive about the whole issue, but will eventually tell the reasons why he thinks that what he does is appropriate. Another recommendation would be listening and interacting with Joe and letting him know the difficulties that his conduct are bringing upon the procedures of the business. By doing this, Joe would feel respected in the company and also provide what he thinks should be done in order to improve on work conditions. Thirdly, Jones should explain the perceptions of violations of the company’s rules to Joe and specifically why he feels that the behavior is inappropriate. He should consider the best ways to address the lack of compliance and inspire change in Joe’s conduct. If these strategies fail, then the policies and procedures of the company should be implemented and make Joe face the consequence of his behavior.
Implications.
Talking to Joe would make him understand how his colleagues feel about him and the implications of his behavior to the company. This may initiate change in behavior. Listening to him acts as a motivation as Joe would feel wanted and this may drive a change in his behavior. Explaining the perception of Joe’s conduct would bring him back into the fold. However, if the recommendations do not work, and the only option is to dismiss him, then this would preserve a much orderly and suitable working place.
